[1]The Court — The respondent’s convictions for sexual assault and forcible
confinement were set aside by a majority in the Court of Appeal for Ontario
(2010 ONCA 544, 266 O.A.C. 27). The Crown appeals as of right pursuant to s.
693(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

[2]The majority intervened
with the verdict mainly on the basis of the trial judge’s findings in respect
of particular items of evidence, and his failure to explain why certain
“factors did not raise a reasonable doubt that the accusations may have been
fabricated” (para. 35).

[3]While we do not agree
on all aspects of the majority’s approach, we are not persuaded that it erred
in the result in setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial. Based
on our review of the trial judge’s reasons as a whole, we agree that he erred
in law by failing to give adequate consideration to the question of whether the
evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

[4]The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitor for the
appellant: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.

Solicitor for the
respondent: Michael G. Engel, Toronto.

Solicitor for the
intervener: Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted,
Toronto.

For 20 years now, the Lexum site has been the main public source for Supreme Court decisions.